I was originally on the topic Panasonic Fz200 vs Olympus OM-D E-M5 as they where what I was considering before. Through the patience of Mark (Maestro) in explaning about these cameras, I've come to the conclusion that they are not for me. I’ve decided to continue my search in compact cams with larger sensors. I had these on my list: Panasonic LX7, Panasonic LF1, Canon G15, Nikon P7700, Sony RX100.

I have tried to narrow these down. I’m not even sure if I got it right. I got a head ache from looking into each specs and a lot of it I don’t understand. Anyway, I’ve narrowed it to 3 and that is the Panasonic LX3, Sony RX100 (although now I see that there is a new RX100 II), and Nikon P7700.

It’s so hard for to pick. If only the LX7 has a higher zoom, then it’s a sure winner for me because I have the LX3 and it has been reliable so far. In spite of it’s sensor size compared to the RX100 it would seem that it’s a handsdown winner for the RX100, but it seems to be not totally the case. A review also mentioned that it doesn’t mean that a higher pixel count would be an outright winner and that sometimes it contributes to poorer image quality. I have not been able to comprehend this still. I used to think the higher the pixel, the better it would be. As I try to read some reviews, there is always an in depth comparison of ISO. The reason why I’m not able to fully appreciate this is maybe because I never used ISO settings and have no idea how to adjust this. Is this a major component in comparing cameras? It seems to be always mentioned. The LX7 seems to have a faster lens so does it mean that it’s better in low light and could be better than the RX100? But it also says that the RX100 wins hands down in the high ISO test. When is this high ISO used?

If it were not for the zoom, I probably would take out Nikon P7700 on the list. Is the aperture of f2.0 a big difference from the f1.4 of LX7 or f1.8 of RX100? From comparisons, it gives me the impression that because it has a smaller aperture, then it’s image quality is poorer than the other 2?

I don’t know if I’m comparing and analyzing these cams the right way. Hope you can still help me out again here.

As I try to read some reviews, there is always an in depth comparison of ISO. ... Is this a major component in comparing cameras?

It's important if you take pictures in low light (which you stated in your other thread that you do).

Quote:

The LX7 seems to have a faster lens so does it mean that it’s better in low light and could be better than the RX100?

No, because, as noted in the previous thread, the sensor in the RX100 is much bigger than the sensor in the LX7. (There are other reasons, too -- different sensor tech and processing engines (Sony vs Panasonic) -- but the large sensor size difference in this case has the most impact.)

(Also note Gordon's High ISO comparison between the RX100 and LX7 in which he says, "Compared with the Panasonic Lumix LX7 there isn't much in it at the lower sensitivites up to around 400 ISO, but the smaller sensor in the LX7 can't match the RX100 and starts to fall behind from there on. At 3200 ISO I'd put the LX7 about a stop behind the RX100.")

Quote:

When is this high ISO used?

In low light, there are three things you can do to compensate:

use a slower shutter speed. The problem with this is that people have a hard time staying perfectly still, even when they're posing. (Also, it can be difficult for the photographer to hold the camera perfectly still.) So for handheld (i.e. not on a tripod) candid photos, it's generally recommended that the shutter speed stay above 1/60.

use a larger aperture. The main issue here is that, at some point, you will hit the largest possible aperture that the lens is capable of.

So when you are already at the slowest possible shutter speed and the largest possible aperture, your only other option is:

increase ISO. The main problem here is that the higher the ISO, the more "noise" there is.

Quote:

If it were not for the zoom, I probably would take out Nikon P7700 on the list.

Quick note: the 20MP of the RX100 allows you to crop the picture and simulate an additional (digital) "zoom". i.e. if you crop out the middle 10MP to make an image equivalent to the LX7's resolution, it would be similar to the RX100 at 140mm (Full Frame equiv.). Similarly, if you crop out the middle 12MP to match the P7700's resolution, it would be like the RX100 at 130mm (Full Frame equiv.). Still much shorter than the P7700's 200mm, but somewhat less so.

Quote:

Is the aperture of f2.0 a big difference from the f1.4 of LX7 or f1.8 of RX100?

I hate to give up on the LX7, but from the looks it may be a choice between RX100 or NikonP7700. It seems there is a big difference in cost of the RX100 as against the LX7 and P7700. Anyway, with the focal range of P7700,do you think it's enough to get a decent pic from a stage 40ft away from an audience? I'm thinking that if it's not going to be passable anyway, then I may just have to live with using the SX240 and probably learn something about manual setting that may hopefully improve the quality of the picture. Then I would just pick the RX100 as an upgrade.

I was told that using the flash of the SX240 under that condition isn't necessary. Also that it may be causing the lag. What manual setting would you suggest if there is anything I can improve?

...with the focal range of P7700,do you think it's enough to get a decent pic from a stage 40ft away from an audience?

Well, "decent" is subjective. But I will reiterate what I said in the other thread:

"While a lens that's twice as long, i.e. 200mm (like the LF1 and P7700), will capture ... around 7 feet by 4.5 feet. ... So if your kids are, say, 2 feet tall, you can extrapolate how much of the frame they will take up."

Quote:

What manual setting would you suggest if there is anything I can improve?

Although geared toward a different camera and a concert environment, the basic concepts would be the same as I outlined in this post. Just ignore the camera specific comments but add a recommendation to turn on image stabilization in your case since you won't be close to the stage. (i.e. you'll be using a long enough focal length and slow enough shutter speed so IS should have an impact.)